O/T This just in...........

You may have heard on the news about a southern California man put under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found he owned 100 guns and allegedly had (by rough estimate) 1-million rounds of ammunition stored in his home. The house also featured a secret escape tunnel.

My favorite quote from the dimwit television reporter: "Wow! He has about a million machine gun bullets." The headline referred to it as a "massive weapons cache".

By southern California standards someone owning even 100,000 rounds would be called "mentally unstable”. Just imagine if he lived elsewhere:

In Arizona , he'd be called "an avid gun collector".

In Arkansas , he'd be called "a novice gun collector".

In Utah , he'd be called "moderately well prepared", but they'd probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.

In Montana , he'd be called "The neighborhood 'Go-To' guy".

In Idaho , he'd be called "a likely gubernatorial candidate".

In Wyoming , he'd be called "an eligible bachelor".

And in Nebraska, he'd be called "a deer hunting buddy".

LOL

Leonard

In Texas we would say he was understocked.

The ones that should be under psychiatric observation in Calif. are the people in their govt. and the people that keep voting for them. Like pusloosy! ha

I like your post and given that California is involved it is funny and indeed relevant to the situation in alot of ways. However after reading one of the articles out there about the whole situation, it looks like he was placed under observation not just because of the guns but because of the whole scope of the incident. First there was 'exposing himself' to people, including a young girl, then the conditions they found inside of his house, and the amont of guns and ammo he had just
seemed to be the icing on the cake.

I'm a member of the NRA, I own several long guns and hand guns myself, and I believe gun ownership is a right guaranteed to us in the Constitution.........At the same time I still believe that if someone shows signs of being mentally unstable like this guy has, regardless of what state he lives in, I don't think he needs to own a gun. Especially if his doing so is going to be a hazard to the public. To me it's no different than any of the other restrictions placed upon people, be it revoked driving privledges for DUI, or whatever, in order to keep people with the potential to be a hazard and killing someone from actually doing so....

The reporter could well have been correct.

"I still believe that if someone shows signs of being mentally unstable like this guy has, regardless of what state he lives in, I don't think he needs to own a gun. Especially if his doing so is going to be a hazard to the public."

This has a sense of truth and common sense, but who do you really trust to decide which of us is a hazard to the public. The devil is always in the details - just ask the Jewish people about Hitler's little program to disarm the potentially dangerous citizens.

In Kentucky he just spent his beer money on guns, everybody needs a hobby.

"The house also featured a secret escape tunnel." Why?

No doubt!!!

No doubt!!!

In Louisiana he'd be "Bout ready for deer season'

Gun nuts don't bother me. Nuts with guns? That's a little iffy.

As The old teashirt says. I spent most of my money on guns and ammo. The rest I just wasted.

True, but just seeing what this guy was doing would lead any sane person to see that he was at best 'a little off'. Regardless by flashing a minor he showed he has very little self control and personally I think his crime should be considered a felony. But that's just my opinion. If it was, and it may or may not be, he wouldn't be allowed to legally own a gun anyways.